1. Field of Invention
The present invention relates to a traction system and more particularly to a traction system suitable for home, i.e. non-hospital use. The present invention further relates to such a system which utilizes a traction weighing system in which the lines to the weights are suspended over a stand positioned near, but not needing any support, from the foot of the patient's bed.
2. Prior Art and General Background
Neurosurgeons see many patients with cervical and lumbo-sacral pain. A standard initial treatment for these problems is traction.
For the cervical spine there are several commercially available devices which allow this treatment to be undertaken at home. These employ straps placed beneath the chins and occiput (back of head) with a pulley attached to a door. Plastic containers filled with water or sand attached to a rope provide the traction.
For the patients with lumbo-sacral pain a waist band is fitted around the hips, and ropes are attached to this waist band. Using pulleys, traction is applied by attaching the ropes to metal discs or plastic containers containing water or sand. Recently electrical devices have also been employed. For the most part this requires hospitalization or daily trips to the physical therapist.
Although there are several devices currently available for home lumbar traction, these are unsatisfactory and rarely ordered by physicians. One of these commercially available home devices fits onto the edge of a mattress. (Beds without an exposed mattress edge are unsuitable for this type of device.) These devices are far from ideal and leave much to be desired. The weight necessary to attain traction causes the device to tilt and pull away from the mattress. Another type employs a free standing pole attached to a heavy metal base. This apparatus is bulky and awkward to store. Manipulating the heavy metal stand can be difficult for the patient. These also have a tendency to tilt.
Recently various devices that hang the patient by his feet, torso, pelvis, or arm pits have become commercially available. One of these devices requires the user to lay on the floor with a strap between the legs attempting to use the patient's own weight to provide traction. These all require a rather large area for usage. They are relatively expensive and immobile devices. There also may be some medically deleterious effects with some, particularly those hanging the patient by the feet.
The apparatus currently used in hospitals can be obtained for home use. This generally is rented. A hospital bed is necessary to satisfactorily accommodate this equipment. It cannot be directly attached to most patients' beds. These attachments also can be quite cumbersome and expensive.
Suffice it to say that there is no home lumbar traction device currently available in the marketplace that meets both the needs and expectatons of the physician and the patient. A partial list of these needs are as follows:
(1) Portability;
(2) Universality (usable with any type and height bed, without damage to the bed);
(3) Stability (elimination of tipping over and tilting);
(4) Simplicity of structure and assembly;
(5) Minimal space required (both for use and storage); and
(6) Affordability
With respect to the patent literature a number of traction devcices are suggested, particularly in the time period of 1955-1970.
These prior devices appear to fall into two basic classes--a first one in which the pulley(s) for the traction weights(s) is/are located either directly or indirectly on the patient's bed frame; note particularly the patents to Morton (U.S. Pat. No. 3,522,802 issued Aug. 4, 1970) and to Singleton (U.S. Pat. No. 4,492,224 issued Jan. 8, 1985). A second approach is that using a separate, free-standing stand located adjacent to the patient's bed; note particularly the patents to Miller (U.S. Pat. No. 2,796,061 issued June 18, 1957) and to Peters (U.S. Pat. No. 3,503,390 issued Mar. 31, 1970). The patent to Alexander (U.S. Pat. No. 3,398,742 issued Aug. 27, 1968) discloses somewhat of a hybrid device in that it utilizes a stand, but one which has to be located flush up against the bed frame, receiving part of its stability from that interface.
The present invention does not attach to the bed nor is any part of it placed under the bed or mattress. The device patented by Alexander has a bar that fits beneath the foot of the bed. Such a device could not be used with the large number of beds that sit flat on the floor. This is also true of the device patented by Miller. (Note FIG. 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 2,796,061.) Based on the drawings of the prior patents and what is known about lumbar traction devices, all of the prior art devices are subject to tilting and/or sliding if an attempt is made to use them as a lumbar traction device. Indeed none are disclosed for specific use as a lumbar traction device.
The most pertinent patents appear to be the patents to Miller and Peters, both of which are directed to "home" type traction systems. The Miller device uses a squared-off frame base located on the floor with a portion of its extending under the patient's bed and having a rearwardly offset pulley section for the traction weight; while the Peters device utilizes a tripod support frame, the apex of which is located above the tensioning line, with the pulleys for the weights being centrally located. Neither use supplemental stabilizing weights for the stand. Both of these stands are vertically adjustable by the use of telescoping supports legs.
There are substantial structural and methodology differences between the stand of the invention and the stands of Miller and Peters, with for example the invention using preferably pivoting "X" braces with the traction weights being centrally located and with the addition of rearwardly placed supplemental stabilizing weights.
It is noted that the Miller device is not a lumbar traction device, but rather an extremity traction device, and could not operate as one due to its inherent instability and tendency to tip over under the greater forces that occur in a lumbar traction device. The Miller device was designed and used for extremity traction, that is, arms and legs. Patients with broken bones of the arms and legs are frequently placed in such devices.
The device patented by Peters, at the weight levels providing the customary angle of traction, tilting would occur as well. In column 4 (Claim 1) of the Peters patent, this limitation is indirectly addressed. If the rope 56 is not horizontal and very near the mattress, the device will tilt towards the bed even under relatively small traction loads such as thirty pounds as arise in extremity traction. It may tilt even when horizontal when the traction loads of for example thirty-five to forty-five pounds as arise in lumbar traction. If the Peters device works at all, it would be limited to beds in which the rope could be kept horizontal and close to the bed and used at relatively low load levels. If a patient's bed had a foot board or frame rising above the level of the mattress, the rope could not be kept horizontal, and tilting would occur.
In addition to universality, the "X" support frame's back bar of the present invention allows the stabilizing-counter balancing weight to be attached. By using the "X" support frame with the counter balancing weight, stability can be achieved with any bed style or angle of traction. The concept of using counter balancing weight, much less a practical means to deploy the idea, is not even remotely present in any of the patented devices, only traction weights being present.
None of the prior art devices employs a structure like the "H" support frame of the invention. Whatever similarities between the "X" support frame and other frames which might be conjured up, none can be applied to the "H" support frame. Likewise, important are the adjustable or multiple "hooks" of the present invention, which allow height adjustment to a given bed height. Also, the cross bar is so placed as to serve the function of bearing the traction weight, without interfering with the counter balancing weight applied to the rear bar of the "X" support frame.
The "H" frame, the "X" frame, and counter-balancing stabilization weight of the present invention are unique individually as applied to lumbar traction and are additionally unique in combination.
The present invention is medically and commercially superior to that of the prior patents.
The patents to Orman (U.S. Pat. No. 2,845,317 issued July 29, 1958) and to Olander et al (U.S. Pat. No. 2,957,736 issued Oct. 25, 1960) are from a non-analogous art and are cited only as examples of tables utilizing "X" bracing type legs.
The Varco patent (U.S. Pat. No. 3,452,747 issued July 1, 1969) is noted only for general background interest in its disclosure of a traction belt.
3. Further General, Summary Discussion of the Invention
The present invention is thus directed to a lumbar traction system particularly suitable for home, i.e. non-hospital, use (although of course it can be used anywhere desired, including the hospital), which includes preferably a stand having an "H" shaped, top frame member sitting on a pair of spaced, pivoting "X" type legs, with the stand being located near but spaced from the foot of the patient's bed, with one or more ropes or lines extending from a traction belt worn by the patient to the top of the stand. Preferably centrally located traction weights are suspended on the rope(s) within the stand between the "X" legs, with rearwardly placed supplemental stabilizing weights (e.g. a water bucket or water bags) being added at the rear of the stand, either as separate hanging items or an integrated tray or platform. Such an arrangement is highly stable and self-sustaining, notwithstanding the substantial resistive force of the patient under traction, and the substantial weight of the centrally located traction weights.
Also preferably included on the top frame member is a series of spaced, opposed hooks on its underside which are selectively mated with the top cross-bars of the "X" legs, to selectively provide the desired effective height to the stand.
The stand and its associated rigging and weights are quite adaptable to many different and varying lumbar traction circumstances, and can be readily and easily altered for various heights and traction forces.
Also, the present invention is not only more flexible and adaptable and reliable than the prior art suggestions, the system is very inexpensive, manufacturable without great investments in plant and equipment, and functions more effectively for the purpose intended than the prior art.
Likewise, the use for the "X" type support legs and a separable "H" frame member makes the system collapsible for compact storage, and the "H" frame being generally flat, with its structure all lying in the same plane, is likewise inherently compact for storage.
Also, although the system is particularly suitable for home use, it could of course also be used in a hospital setting.